Annotation #3 Word count: 620 1. Title, director and release year? Title: “The End of the Line” Director: Rupert Murray Release Year: 2009 2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument is that people are overfishing and that causes many ecological problems. Many types of fishes are nearly extinct due to excessive fishing and regulations that are currently in place seem to be ineffective since the situation just keeps getting worse. 3.How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Film covers different regions of the world that undergone the crisis of overfishing and its effects. Collapse of cod fish in Canada that took place in 1993 was covered and some people who lived through it were interviewed. Some of the scientific data was also presented. It was said that this data was used to set the limits but overfishing continued. An example given: 60,000 tons of bluefin tuna was taken from the ocean versus recommended 10,000 tons. 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
It covers a few different areas since there are many stakeholders. It impacts ecological and economic sector since fishing is multi billion industry where bluefin tuna industry alone is approximately 25 billion in revenue. When there is no more fish, like in the situation that happened in Canada, towns get deserted because there is no more income. Also, if fish is scarce there is going to be more of plankton and many beaches become dangerous. 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked that there were a lot of scientific facts presented. It was said that back when large scale fishing started in 1950 a fisherman could get 10 fishes per 100 hooks and today it is less than 1 fish per same 100 hooks. 6.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film overall was very dramatic and exaggerated a bit the importance of fish on the food market. It was presented as if people depended on fish more than on anything else in their diets. We can deal with more strict regulations that will bring up the population of fish. 7.What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses an average consumer and tries to get people to look at the labels. I will certainly look for MSC marine stewardship council label. 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would nice to see little bit more about sustainable fishing and marine sanctuaries. I believe presenting this type of information is very useful since it doesn’t only help to solve overfishing but also is a good way to ensure the quality of the fish you are buying. 9.What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The main point that was made towards the end of the movie is that we should take responsibility as consumers. For example, acknowledging this concern even McDonald’s and Walmart started delivering fish that is MSC marine stewardship certified. 10.What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I looked at NY fishing laws and found that a lot of these problems are being acknowledged and addressed: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/fishing.html
Also, I found out that a lot of the sold fish in the US is mislabeled: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/survey-finds-that-fish-are-often-not-what-label-says.html?_r=0
Word count: 620
1. Title, director and release year?
Title: “The End of the Line”
Director: Rupert Murray
Release Year: 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument is that people are overfishing and that causes many ecological problems. Many types of fishes are nearly extinct due to excessive fishing and regulations that are currently in place seem to be ineffective since the situation just keeps getting worse.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Film covers different regions of the world that undergone the crisis of overfishing and its effects. Collapse of cod fish in Canada that took place in 1993 was covered and some people who lived through it were interviewed. Some of the scientific data was also presented. It was said that this data was used to set the limits but overfishing continued. An example given: 60,000 tons of bluefin tuna was taken from the ocean versus recommended 10,000 tons.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
It covers a few different areas since there are many stakeholders. It impacts ecological and economic sector since fishing is multi billion industry where bluefin tuna industry alone is approximately 25 billion in revenue. When there is no more fish, like in the situation that happened in Canada, towns get deserted because there is no more income. Also, if fish is scarce there is going to be more of plankton and many beaches become dangerous.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked that there were a lot of scientific facts presented. It was said that back when large scale fishing started in 1950 a fisherman could get 10 fishes per 100 hooks and today it is less than 1 fish per same 100 hooks.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film overall was very dramatic and exaggerated a bit the importance of fish on the food market. It was presented as if people depended on fish more than on anything else in their diets. We can deal with more strict regulations that will bring up the population of fish.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses an average consumer and tries to get people to look at the labels. I will certainly look for MSC marine stewardship council label.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would nice to see little bit more about sustainable fishing and marine sanctuaries. I believe presenting this type of information is very useful since it doesn’t only help to solve overfishing but also is a good way to ensure the quality of the fish you are buying.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The main point that was made towards the end of the movie is that we should take responsibility as consumers. For example, acknowledging this concern even McDonald’s and Walmart started delivering fish that is MSC marine stewardship certified.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I looked at NY fishing laws and found that a lot of these problems are being acknowledged and addressed:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/fishing.html
Also, I found out that a lot of the sold fish in the US is mislabeled:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/survey-finds-that-fish-are-often-not-what-label-says.html?_r=0